8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wastelander
Wastelander's picture
Groundwork from a striker's perspective

Hello, everyone,

This week, we take a look at grappling from a striker's perspective--specifically working toward getting back to the feet, where escape and effective striking are viable options. As we point out in the video, we are only covering three specific situations to consider, and there are many other contingencies to include in your training. Additionally, we believe it is very important for all martial artists to have at least basic grappling skills, such as the ability to escape from a mounted, side-mounted, or half-guard position, and dealing with basic submissions and takedowns.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Good video. Thanks for posting. It’s one of those things that folk need to practise more. Because of the way various arts compete / fight each other  this is not done enough. Grapplers frequently train with the assumption that other person will be grappling on the floor with them. Most strikers stop at that point as a count is given (MMA being the exception – although no kicks are allowed to a downed fighter). One or more standing and trying to strike with fists or feet is widespread in self-defence though.

People can fall to the floor together, and for a sexual assault the criminal could well have the intention of putting their intended victim on the floor and controlling them there. However, if we are talking about an individual or group simply wishing to inflict injury then the “boot party” is what is most likely to happen i.e. having knocked you down, the enemy / enemies will reign down on you with their feet and fists. Joining you on the floor is a very ineffective way for the criminal to achieve their objective. Better for them to simply remaining standing and try to kick seven shades of #### out of you. So, while we should train both (them standing, and them on the floor with you), this violent blitz from a standing position is of most concern because it is most likely and will do most damage (every kick could kill).

One thing to keep in mind is that if we got knocked down then we are likely to be more than a little “out of it” already. We should always keep things simple, but now doubly so. It also needs drilled a lot so it’s habit. I think it would be fair to say that we drill this pretty much every time we spar.

Here is a quick video on my take on things. There’s nothing in it which is not covered above, but a couple of variations on a theme which may add something.

All the best,

Iain

 

PASmith
PASmith's picture

"although no kicks are allowed to a downed fighter"

Just to be a little pedantic but kicks are allowed to the body of a downed opponent in the unified rules some organisations use (UFC and Bellator for example) and kicks and stomps are allowed to the head and body under other rule sets (most notably the old Pride rules and One FC today). So dealing with kicks on the ground isn't a total unknown entity in MMA. And of course kicks and stomps to a downed opponent were widespread in early NHB/MMA (Chute Boxe fighters being particularly known for it).

It's a wonder to me that more stand up arts don't adopt the "technical stand up/stand up in base" from BJJ. It seems such a simple and useful skill that is vital for anyone that might, in the course of a "fight" (even one without ground fighting), end up on the floor. Given how often people in kicking arts simply fall over in just normal training it seems a glaring ommision.

Tau
Tau's picture

You can debate how many "ranges" of combat there are. Peter Consterdine (and Iain) use a seven-range model. I personally use a four-range model. However, in my oppinion, any such model and indeed anyone teaching in a pragmatic manner MUST include groundwork to some degree. It frustrates me to no end that some clubs or styles claim to self defence but omit groundwork entirely.

For me, my syllabus includes addressing all the ranges of combat from every grade. We figure the standing-up motion (which we call the "combative stand-up") into our warm-ups usually.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

PASmith wrote:
Just to be a little pedantic but kicks are allowed to the body of a downed opponent in the unified rules

Apologies for any lack of clarity, but it depends what we mean by "kicks". Not all kicks to a downed opponent's body are allowed.

When I wrote the above I was thinking of "soccer kicks" to the head and stomps to either the body or head. My understanding is that stomps to the body are prohibited by the unified rules; as well as all kicks to the head of a downed opponent.

The point was that trying to stamp someone flat is common in criminal violence but, quite rightly, not something that we generally see when martial artist and combat athletes strike or grapple with each other. And that's undoubtedly why getting up with enemy / enemies standing gets overlooked so much. The way martial artist train and fight each other generally does not see feet raining in from one or more people ("team mma" being a rarely practiced and unpopular exception). But it's common and highly effective when it comes to criminals inflicting harm. It is when we appreciate context, know our enemy and fight to the goal that we will train most effectively; whatever it is we are training for.

PASmith wrote:
It's a wonder to me that more stand up arts don't adopt the "technical stand up/stand up in base" from BJJ. It seems such a simple and useful skill that is vital

It's something everyone should train, and it's not something unique to BJJ either (although it would be fair to say that's one of the places you definitely see it taught well). You can look at almost any bona fide combative system (civilian and military) and there will be some variation on it precisely because it's so valuable. Never hurts to look for best practice though.

All the best,

Iain

 
sarflondonboydo...
sarflondonboydonewell's picture

 

The range debate is interesting, as I now tend to coach boxing more than Jutsu  I  teach two ranges; in range and out of range and bad footwork can get you into trouble but good footwork can get you out of trouble.  I agree with Tau regarding ground work, If one claims to teach self defence then it is a requirement. The evidence is over whelming that ground skill do matter in a physical confrontation. I am not certain why that not is accepted; may be the reason is that instructors themselves have no training in the ground skills.  Years ago having been asked by a head of a karate group I did a training session covering for me what are the baseline techniques including drills that goes with it ( which can done as a warm up for both exercise and skill maintenance ); the sprawl, escaping the mount, escaping an attacker  falling on you from the side, an attacker falling on your back whilst face down, getting up  and protecting oneself from being stomped on.   

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

I think that the tendency of striking arts, or arts where striking is the primary intention, to ignore grappling--and groundwork, especially--comes from three primary sources: lack of interest, overconfidence, and fear.

Some people simply have no interest in learning, practicing, or teaching grappling methods. This is fine for striking sports, of course, and if it makes them happy, then great! I know some very dedicated karateka who have no interest in practical kata application, and just enjoy learning and practicing the patterns. As long as you don't claim to be doing something you aren't, and you enjoy it, then that's fine.

Some people have such confidence in their ability to stop grappling from occurring that they feel they do not need to prepare for it. Considering that slips/trips/falls are the most common cause of accidental injury and death in the US (and most other places, too, I would think), this is completely false confidence even without considering the skills of an attacker. I know of a very highly ranked (of highly questionable legitimacy, admittedly) "master" here in the US who tells his students that "Shorin-Ryu is too fast to be taken down," and doesn't have the slightest clue how to even teach basic breakfalls. This kind of thing is disingenuous and dangerous.

Some people fall on the opposite end of the spectrum, and are so afraid of grappling that they want nothing to do with it. They may try to pick up "anti-grappling" techniques and convince themselves that will prevent them from having to deal with it. This can actually feed right back into the "overconfidence" category, as well.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Wastelander wrote:
They may try to pick up "anti-grappling" techniques and convince themselves that will prevent them from having to deal with it.

Yeah, that really bugs me. You need grappling skills to “anti-grapple”.

The key is to accept the difference between what you need to grapple to a win in a consensual exchange another grappler, and what you need to escape from a criminal in non-consensual violence (where you can also strike, etc).

Failing to differentiate between contexts is problematic.

Trying to negate skilled grappling with “anti-grappling” is deliberate self-deluding that further confuses the issue.

All the best,

Iain